Good sense in Maher's rant

[Luddly Neddite]

Daily Kos: Bill Maher on what the Second Amendment crowd is missing

Even those who don't like him should find something here to like -

... Someone has to tell America's gun nuts to stop wetting their Army surplus pants about losing the Second Amendment. It's not your Second Amendment rights that are under attack; it's all the other ones. ..

Read the rest at the link.

 

[Underhill]

Daily Kos: Bill Maher on what the Second Amendment crowd is missing

Even those who don't like him should find something here to like -

... Someone has to tell America's gun nuts to stop wetting their Army surplus pants about losing the Second Amendment. It's not your Second Amendment rights that are under attack; it's all the other ones. ..

Read the rest at the link.

I thought the same thing when I watched it. A lot of truth there.

 

[whitehall]

"Losing one of the Bill of Rights"? The left is getting a little reckless with the rhetoric aren't they?

 

[Underhill]

"Losing one of the Bill of Rights"? The left is getting a little reckless with the rhetoric aren't they?

His point is that while the right is so worried about the 2nd amendment being taken away, we are losing so much more. And soon, we will be armed to the teeth to protect freedoms that no longer exist.

 

[daveman]

Daily Kos: Bill Maher on what the Second Amendment crowd is missing

Even those who don't like him should find something here to like -

... Someone has to tell America's gun nuts to stop wetting their Army surplus pants about losing the Second Amendment. It's not your Second Amendment rights that are under attack; it's all the other ones. ..

Read the rest at the link.

You do know, don't you, that he's criticizing what Obama and the Democrats are doing to erode our rights?

No. I don't think you do.

 

[catzmeow]

Obama and the left passed the Patriot Act?

 

[Underhill]

Daily Kos: Bill Maher on what the Second Amendment crowd is missing

Even those who don't like him should find something here to like -

... Someone has to tell America's gun nuts to stop wetting their Army surplus pants about losing the Second Amendment. It's not your Second Amendment rights that are under attack; it's all the other ones. ..

Read the rest at the link.

You do know, don't you, that he's criticizing what Obama and the Democrats are doing to erode our rights?

No. I don't think you do.

I think he is criticizing everyone in Washington. And he is right.

 

[Sunni Man]

Bill Maher on what the Second Amendment crowd is missing


"And finally, New Rule: Someone has to tell America's gun nuts to stop wetting their Army surplus pants about losing the Second Amendment. It's not your Second Amendment rights that are under attack; it's all the other ones.
It used to be that law enforcement couldn't search you without probable cause, but now we're becoming a quasi-police state where one minute you're home quietly reading 50 Shades of Grey, and suddenly there's a SWAT team in your living room waving guns. And you're going, "No, no, Katt Williams lives next door!"

Now, last month, while no one was taking anyone's guns from anybody, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize a program where they can collect data on any American citizen and hold onto it forever. They can look at your e-mails, your texts, your Skypes, and not a peep out the crowd that's always bitching about what the framers intended. In fact, the answer from almost everyone seems to be, "Oh what the hell, the airport screeners have already seen my ass anyway."

The Facebook generation, especially, doesn't seem to care that Big Brother knows everything about you — what books you read, what movies you watch, your Match.com account, your other Match.com account when you're feeling a little freaky and wanna meet the sort of woman your regular Match.com account wouldn't approve of.

Call me old school, but I don't want the feds Googling what I'm Googling. It's bad enough when Netflix pries into my private life. "You watched The Walking Dead and Zombieland. You might also like this interview with John McCain."

(audience laughter)

I don't want the government doing that! "You downloaded this article favoring the legalization of marijuana. You might also like being incarcerated."

You know, they always say these programs are just to catch terrorists. The next thing you know, they're using them to shut down the pot dispensaries. And that place was right on my way home! Now I gotta go to Valley Village!

Doesn't anyone care that this is the new normal? I guess not, because gun nuts don't care, and neither do liberals. When Bush did warrantless wiretapping, oh, he was wiping his ass with the Constitution. But when Obama does it, oh well, whatever helps Jessica Chastain find bin Laden, we're good with that.

(smattering of audience applause)

Yeah, both parties compete mightily to appear to be the greater champion of our freedoms, but the only thing that still has bipartisan support in Washington is not giving a shit about privacy.

And when you talk to the NRA types, as I like to do down at my local moose lodge, they actually believe that what protects their rights isn't laws, or courts, it's that they have a gun. They think that's what keeps the government from going too far. Without guns, Obama would become an emperor and force everyone to gay marry, but he can't because a guy in Kentucky named Skeeter has a .22.

(audience applause)

Except that, you know, while you guys were buying guns to protect your other guns, sittin' up on the porch there, waitin' for Obama's Negro Army to come confiscate your weapons and go all Django Unchained on your ass — that's when we lost all the stuff in the Bill of Rights, about trials and juries and warrants.

You see, the Redcoats — they never wanted your gun. They wanted your liberty. And that's why the Founding Fathers said you could have the gun, dumbass! And now the only right we have left is the guns, and left nothing left to use the guns to protect! We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers!"

Daily Kos: Bill Maher on what the Second Amendment crowd is missing

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Obama and the left passed the Patriot Act?

No, but he didn't repeal it either.

That's the problem with more than just the unPatriot Act. Once a law is passed, its really hard to get rid of it.

Another example - the idiotic Bush tax cuts or, as the rw's are finding out, ACA.

President Obama does not dare repeal the Patriot Act.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Obama and the left passed the Patriot Act?

It was passed by the Republicrats. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuybefOu0t0]Dennis Kucinich in Nov. 2007 CNN Debate - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PaulS1950]

The way the government works to get your rights is in little pieces. "Death by a thousand cuts" is just as dead as if you used a cannon but you don't notice the little cuts until its too late.

Every word that is spoken, typed or otherwise communicated over the phone, cable and radio based information highway is copied and read by our federal government. First amendment and fourth amendment rights are being chipped away. The searches of people in the airports and their baggage - even the ones that are not going out of their own state - is now somehow OK. If they had done these things in the 50s they would have been thrown out of government. Even back then we had violations of the first amendment with the congressional hearings on communists in our country and the more forceful interrogations of suspected criminals.
Yes, I care about the second amendment but I also care just as passionately about the rest too. The government started down this slippery slope a long time ago and the momentum is continuing to build.
The bill of rights was supposed to guarantee that our government would pretect our rights but instead they are systematically removing all of them. Most think it is alright to let them do what they want because it is making us safer... how safe will we be when our rights are gone?

 

[daveman]

Obama and the left passed the Patriot Act?

They expanded it.

 

[PaulS1950]

We allowed then to pass it and expand it. We put people into office that care more about their own agenda than the constitution, the country or the people. We vote for "emblems" of or ideals and they don't come close. They give us "free" things that cost us more than if the government was not involved in exchange for our freedoms.
The need for a representative government has passed. We can vote on our own - we have instant communication. It no longer takes weeks or months to be heard. It is time to stand up and take back the power of the people - the power to govern ourselves.
It has been proven in the last two hundred years that representative watch out for their own interests and not the interests of the country or its people. We need to change the fundamental form of government to fit within the information era. We don't need to elect people we can later blame. We need to take the responsibility on for ourselves.
Ben Franklin said when asked what kind of government have you given us, "A republic, if you can keep it."
We did not "keep it". We turned it into a democracy which doesn't allow for personal rights or freedoms. It has become a parlimentary democracy where the power to govern is in the hands of a select few presented by the two biggest corporations in the country - The Democrat and Republican parties. Too often people vote for the lesser of two evils because they forget that we can vote for anyone, even those not from the "two parties". We are supposed to live in a republic that has a constitution to protect our rights and freedoms but we, as a people, don't enforce it. America has lost its way and Americans are to blame. Each of us is to blame both collectively and independently.
Shame on us.

 

[depotoo]

Obama and the left passed the Patriot Act?

It was passed by the Republicrats. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuybefOu0t0]Dennis Kucinich in Nov. 2007 CNN Debate - YouTube[/ame]

From Ken Adachi, Editor
Senate Vote Roll Call on U.S. Patriot Act 2001 & 2006
October 27, 2006

These are the 98 U.S. senators for voted in favor of the US Patriot Act of 2001 (Senator Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote) Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act on October 24, of 2001.

Senate Vote Roll Call on U.S. Patriot Act 2001 & 2006

 

[daveman]

We allowed then to pass it and expand it. We put people into office that care more about their own agenda than the constitution, the country or the people. We vote for "emblems" of or ideals and they don't come close. They give us "free" things that cost us more than if the government was not involved in exchange for our freedoms.
The need for a representative government has passed. We can vote on our own - we have instant communication. It no longer takes weeks or months to be heard. It is time to stand up and take back the power of the people - the power to govern ourselves.
It has been proven in the last two hundred years that representative watch out for their own interests and not the interests of the country or its people. We need to change the fundamental form of government to fit within the information era. We don't need to elect people we can later blame. We need to take the responsibility on for ourselves.
Ben Franklin said when asked what kind of government have you given us, "A republic, if you can keep it."
We did not "keep it". We turned it into a democracy which doesn't allow for personal rights or freedoms. It has become a parlimentary democracy where the power to govern is in the hands of a select few presented by the two biggest corporations in the country - The Democrat and Republican parties. Too often people vote for the lesser of two evils because they forget that we can vote for anyone, even those not from the "two parties". We are supposed to live in a republic that has a constitution to protect our rights and freedoms but we, as a people, don't enforce it. America has lost its way and Americans are to blame. Each of us is to blame both collectively and independently.
Shame on us.

Direct democracy would be a catastrophic failure.

 

[Sunni Man]

Direct democracy would be a catastrophic failure.

And what we have now is working so great.........

 

[P F Tinmore]

Direct democracy would be a catastrophic failure.

And what we have now is working so great.........

We have a representative government.

Congress represents the lobbies not the people.

 

[PaulS1950]

Direct democracy would be a catastrophic failure.

You see? This is supposed to be a Republic. A direct republic would not fail unless the people fail. It would have to have guidance until people got used to voting for what is best for the entire country but it would work under a constitution that was written for it. If the States followed suit then it would work for them too, and the counties and parishes as well as the cities and towns.
There is no way that the vote could be influenced by "special interest" groups because there are far too many people to bribe and corrupt. Instead of a president we would have a diplomat with no power of law. We would have a constitutional court made up of citizens to test the constitutionality of bills before the were voted on. The supreme court would still be in place for conflicts between the States and the people. It would require that the people were well informed in a balanced and complete manner but that can be put in place quickly and completely.

 

[daveman]

Direct democracy would be a catastrophic failure.

And what we have now is working so great.........

Didn't say that, did I?

Would you think direct democracy was so spiffy if the majority of Americans decided that the practice of Islam should be illegal?

 

[daveman]

Direct democracy would be a catastrophic failure.

You see? This is supposed to be a Republic. A direct republic would not fail unless the people fail. It would have to have guidance until people got used to voting for what is best for the entire country but it would work under a constitution that was written for it. If the States followed suit then it would work for them too, and the counties and parishes as well as the cities and towns.
There is no way that the vote could be influenced by "special interest" groups because there are far too many people to bribe and corrupt. Instead of a president we would have a diplomat with no power of law. We would have a constitutional court made up of citizens to test the constitutionality of bills before the were voted on. The supreme court would still be in place for conflicts between the States and the people. It would require that the people were well informed in a balanced and complete manner but that can be put in place quickly and completely.

The first half of your last sentence is why the idea is doomed to failure.